2024 (8) TMI 848 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - refund of unutilised CENVAT credit used in the goods that were exported during the period January 2008 to March 2009 - Eligible input service or not - mining activity amounts to manufacture or not. 100% EOU - refund of unutilised CENVAT credit used in the goods that were exported during the period January 2008 to March 2009 - HELD THAT - The basis on which the original authority had rejected the refund claims vide Order-in-Appeal No.138/2008 dated 31.10.2008 now stands set aside by this Tribunal 2017 (5) TMI 99 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein it was observed that ' I also find that in few appeals which are cited in the table, the assessee has not contested certain amount on account of not having sufficient document in their possession and to that extent I reject their refund claims.' Similarly in 2017 (10) TMI 500 - CESTAT BANGALORE in the appellant s own case for the period October 2006 to September 2007, relying upon the above decision of this Tribunal, the impugned orders were set aside and allowed the refund claims filed by the appellant. Eligible input service or not - mining activity amounts to manufacture or not - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration the fact that the appellate order relied upon by the Original Authority have been set aside by this Tribunal holding that the mining activity amounts to manufacture and the input services were eligible, the refund claims filed by the appellant for the unutilised CENVAT credit is to be allowed. The impugned orders are set aside - appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for refund of unutilised CENVAT credit for exported goods
- Whether the mining activity amounts to manufacture for the purpose of availing CENVAT credit

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against Order-in-Appeal No.186/2010 and Order-in-Appeal No. 195/2010/CUS(B) regarding the rejection of refund claims by M/s. Mineral Enterprises Ltd. for exported iron ore fines and lumps. The appellant contended that their extraction of iron ore constituted manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, 1944, making them eligible for CENVAT credit refund. They argued that previous orders rejecting their claims were set aside by the Tribunal, establishing their eligibility. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their position.

The Authorised Representative (AR) supported the Commissioner (Appeals) findings that the input service credit was not admissible as the appellant did not export output services or finished goods manufactured from dutiable inputs. The main issue was the eligibility of the appellant for the refund of unutilised CENVAT credit used in the exported goods from January 2008 to March 2009.

The Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on Order-in-Appeal No.138/2008 to reject the refund claims. However, the Tribunal had set aside this order in a subsequent decision, emphasizing that mining activity amounts to manufacture and input services were eligible for credit. The Tribunal also highlighted the wide interpretation of "input service" and cited relevant circulars and decisions to support the appellant's position. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, overturning the impugned orders and granting relief to the appellant in accordance with the law.